All Activity

Und warum nennst du dein Thema dann MFD? Vielleicht solltest du auch mal richtig lesen bei der Erstellung deines Themas...

Thats the least of a problem

Thanks for the tip. Fixed.

Hello, i tried too many times now (7 or 8 ,i lost count), and every time the last hangar coordinates seems incorrect or there is another problem... because JSOW always hit the same spot on the taxiway. i link a video. if i do something wrong, please explain EXACTLY how do that. i use "precise" coordinates... launch with a wide margin of range...dont know whats wrong with the last (the first 3 works good). i'm sure you created this mission with the best ideas in mind, but for a player its a pain... start-up the plane is long boring (not even stored heading position?), a long boring flight... then bombing and waiting... but at least are 3 hits... then the last one always missing... i really can't play another time and fail it. thanks.

We had some customer-submitted questions that we thought were important to answer; check them out below: Q - SPO-15 "A question popped into my comments: why does the SPO-15 auto-adapt to the mission, rather than leaving the choice to the mission designers? For instance, if you want to replicate something like Kosovo, the SPO-15 may not be able to react to the 120B. According to the books I read, the first MiG-29s were shot down without even realising they had incoming missiles. However, if you force it, this cannot be replicated. Couldn't a simple checkbox be set in the ME prior to the functions that recreate the threat list? (book example: ""Laslie, Brian D.. Operation Allied Force 1999: NATO's airpower victory in Kosovo."")" (K / YT) A - The SPO-15 will come with 2 options, selectable in special options tab for each aircraft in Mission Editor: stock and automatic. The stock setting is intended for former Warsaw Pact aircraft and includes a fixed program that matches the period when the MiG-29s were first delivered - this DB does not include most threats present in DCS, however that does NOT mean these threats will not be detected - the SPO-15 will detect any radar within its operational band and will always report a detection even if it doesn't recognize it. In other aircraft these unknown sources can be filtered out, but in the MiG-29 this option is not available. The automatic theat program is built on top of the stock program (overwriting PW/PRF bins of the stock program as needed) to match enemy threats within the mission. This however does NOT include missiles, for a simple reason: the SPO-15 doesn't have the resolving capability to distinguish ARH missiles from aircraft that carry them - therefore as long as the carrier aircraft is listed in the threat program (and it typically will be, as the entire HPRF range is filled in as type F by default as are some MPRF slots), the incoming ARH will be mis-identified as the carrier aircraft. As for the case described in the book: this will always be the case, because the transmitters in older ARH missiles are typically quite weak (as the seeker is used for terminal guidance), and the SPO-15 is not sensitive enough to give advanced warning - typically the missile will only be detected 2-4s before impact depending on angle of arrival. And even then, it will not trigger a launch warning (in fact there's no possible scenario in DCS that would trigger the launch warning in the MiG-29 currently), which means that in many scenarios it will be completely unnoticed, particularly if the aircraft is already locked on to by a higher priority threat than type F. As for manual database, it is something that we have considered and that might be considered later in EA if there's a demand for it - currently it doesn't fit any other workflow, as the threat programs are something that would be consistent per country, per theatre, and would not be customized on per-aircraft basis nor by the pilots, as they weren't possible to update in field - the theat program cartridge (which contained a hardware implementation of both the database and the threat recognition algorithm) had to be sent back to manufacturer to update. For that reason it does not fit into the new DTC functionality. Q - SPO-15 They mention side-lobe bleed causing threats to register in the wrong bearing sector (flank/sides/rear). are there cues that help pilots tell these apart from real emissions, like flickering, strength fluctuation, sector drift, etc? (Brody) A - Generally no. The indicator in the SPO-15 does not show raw signals, it shows fully processed (including recognition and priority check) detection events. It also does this separately for each sector, going through them in clockwise fashion one at a time and repeating the whole process for every sector separately. One cue that the pilot might get is if the threat is selected as priority - in that case the weaker signals from other sectors might be considered lower priority by the system due to their lower signal power, and thus they will not be marked as priority despite arriving at the same time from the same threat type. But even in that case there isn't really any way to discern that from an actual detection of another threat of the same type, but further away. As for signal strength indicator - it can provide clues as to whether the pilot is the intended target of the hostile system or not - if the strength is lower than expected, or if it goes up rapidly followed by a priority threat being dumped and returning with a lower signal power: all of that might indicate the hostile radar is actually locked onto another aircraft. Q - SPO-15 With their implementation, is it common for threats to briefly vanish or hop between bearing sectors? how should pilots interpret that behavior if so? (Brody) A - A few technical details need to be explained to address this question: First of all, each detection event is remembered for only 0.125-0.25s - that's how long the green light will flash for. The priority threat, as well as any detected type (type memory is separate from sector detection events memory with no association between a threat and the sector it was detected in) is remembered for 2-12s after that depending on emitter mode, scan rate, and which point in memory dump cycle it was picked up at. This threat memory is per sector, with again each sector treated as a separate "sub-RWR", even for the priority threat: the way a priority threat is tracked between sectors is by overwriting the priority threat memory if an equal or higher priority threat is detected and then extinguishing priority azimuth lights in sectors that do not have an ongoing detection event. Secondly, the azimuthal resolution of the SPO-15 is really poor - in best case scenario it's 10 degrees, but this is only within the +/-50 degree range, for higher AOA it will grow way above that. Thirdly, as this is likely the intent behind this question: no, the physical mechanisms behind fluctuation in measured AoA of western RWRs (a hot topic within the community) is not presently modelled for the SPO-15, as it is not a factor due to how poor the resolution is to begin with - such fluctuations are much lower in magnitude than the angular resolution of this device. The SPO-15 does not measure the AoA of the signal continuously like modern RWRs do, each sector is handled separately and will either detect the threat or not - with the result presented on the corresponding section of the indicator for that sector only. To answer the question: in the case of one receiver and one emitter with the receiving aircraft flying in a straight line, jumping between sectors will not be very common. Vanishing and reapperance will also not be common for incoming threats, but it might occur every scan cycle for outgoing threats (because their priority is decreasing) or for emitters that are powerful enough/have low enough scan rate to falsely trigger a lock on warning. For multiple threats, the primary threat might sometimes rapidly jump between sectors - in those cases, the pilot should assume they are dealing with mutliple threats of the same type, especially if they're separated in azimuth by more than 20 degrees. Q - SPO-15 They describe the SPO‑15 displays signal strength in 2 dB steps, but is this based on absolute ERP received at the antenna, or is it normalized relative to the strongest signal present at the time? can the same emitter show different power levels depending on what else is emitting nearby (Brody) A - It is based on absolute ERP, however the measurement range differs between CW and pulse signals by a factor of 18dB (the circuits for signal power measurement are separate for CW and pulse signals). The dynamic range of the device is only 30dB and the indicator spans that range. The indicated power will typically be consistent with range if the receiving aircraft stays close to boresight, otherwise it might vary considerably, as the radiation pattern of the emitter is taken into account. Q - SPO-15 Will the 90 light not only light up only with 50 light, but 90 light only light up at close range? Long range only 50 light turns on if radar is at 90 degrees. This is because the 90 light needs the less sensitive rear antenna to work Aerea Gloria A - Yes, the 90 degree "sector" is much weaker, not just because of lower sensitivity of rear hemisphere (AND sector 1 and 8 - in fact amplifier gain is adjusted so that these sectors are triggered at the same power density as rear sectors, about 3dB above the forward hemisphere threshold) but also because of how far off-boresight for both antennas the signal needs to be in order to be detected by both simultanously. In fact the 90 degree sector being triggered at all is going to be fairly uncommon. Q - SPO-15 Are PD fighters in Hawk category until around 15-20 km where they are then put in F category? (Aerea Gloria) A - Yes, however the range is much wider than 15-20km and will vary depending on emitter power, anywhere from merge range (F-16 at HPRF) to ~50km out (e.g F-14). A video version of these can be found here:

Hi all, one of the main thing about flying transport aircraft such as the Herc, is flight planning and utilising high and low ifr routes. I was just wondering how will DCS manage this. In MSFS or Xplane which is the closest sim we have to simulate freight transport at the moment tend to use Navigraph subscriptions which allow us to utilise the correct routes and all the real airport charts for approach, taxing etc. Do we know if the Herc will be utilising something similar so we can use a flight planner such as simbrief for our Herc flight, or are ED utilising their own system, and if so how do we get the waypoint names to be able to program these into the FMC, or takeoff and approach routes? I really hope this has been thought about and not just left for us to do what we want as it is currently. granted the landing video put out last month did so approach charts so that does make me hopeful that this has been discussed.

That's true, hence is best to be grateful of the current DCS version or take a breather outside than otherwise. Whatever happens is for the best. At least, they are not a "never delay and always rush" type of developers.

Прошу убрать объявление. Джойстик снят с продажи.

Thank you for your comment. But I do have experience in creating tutorials inside my company. Not for DCS, btw. I know it is not joke. Anyway, this is not the topic. My concern is not about Wags( I think he is doing good job with video tutorial), but past experience with ED and how long and how much dates tend to prolong.

Yes, or report on their section of the forums. We already have reported to them about a related issue and I think so have other users so they might already be aware about this

Nice cockpit.

To balance up that assumption with a more positive assumption. Wags, as a professional that he is, wouldn't be learning on the go to make these introductory videos. There is certainly a structure behind it. Have a go at trying to make/record a tutorial video if you haven't. There is much more than what one can see on a video, from personal experience. Perhaps it is what the marketing schedule is, so let's take these things as marketing as well. There always is.

The lowest refresh rate of the PSVR2 is 90Hz so capping the frame rate to 72fps will cause stutters. You might be better running at 120Hz and aim for 60fps with re-projection up to 120.

Any luck with this mission? At my second attempt and only improved from a poor 74 to 76...

Подключив госаппарат, устранили конкурента и монополизировали рынок. Это разве убыток?

All those numbers are completely pointless, unless providing a VERY specific scene + settings. A trackfile in the best case. I won't specify my GPU (cause it is irrelevant) but I can easily have the FPS fluctuate between 160 and 80 in the same mission, a split second apart, depending on where I look. Better phrasing: Judging GPU performance and comparing fps-performance of different GPUs is only useful, when done with controlled parameters, like scene and GFX settings. Throwing anecdotic numbers around tells nothing!

i have 3090 and i get 120 FPS with my GPU at 99%, how come

The videos can come with the release. What I find more important is to have a manual before the release so one can study it already. The existing FC3 manual is missing all the important parts since it lacks the necessary buttons.

Это двадцатый пакет санкций.

So what, module release is in jeopardy because videos aren't releasing to the schedule you made up yourself? Try to relax dude, it's coming.

Guess that would be up to ED/ other 3rd parties if they're willing to figure out how to code it. Pretty sure that is something ASC said they were able to code and figure out. Maybe others don't see as much value since there is less to interact with in a fighter/attack aircraft. Whereas the C-130 has the entire cargo bay and cargo operations.

now its randomly working again, smells like a possible shadowban

It tracks when it is illuminated by the radar and stops tracking when it isn't. You can see that if you follow the missile in. The guidance kind of pulses on and off. You can also see/hear it before firing, the director bars and the tone you hear also kind of pulse.

You made my day! I appreciate your passion and support for the DCS Train Simulator Community! Maybe ED should consider to integrate train conducting into Combined Arms @cfrag Thank you for your very concise and to the point summary of the state of DCS. I do agree wholeheartedly. The tools situation is exacerbated by the lack of official documentation for almost everything, a tendency to break the scripting interface, and an utter lack of developer attention to core bug reports combined with apparent zero pre-release testing [1, 2]. What adds insult to injury is that the Simulation Control API Documentation (see %DCS_INSTALL_DIR%/API/Sim_ControlAPI.html) claims that scripting API centerpiece net.dostring_in() is now allegedly obsoleted by a_do_script(). That conclusion is ill-conceived and makes me wonder whether ED still understands their own code base. I do have my doubts. Bug triage, i.e., presumably forwarding confirmed bugs to an internal bug tracker, and testing is outsourced to community volunteers, who recently got this new and shiny badge to bolster morale. Sadly, only a tiny fraction of General Bugs filed within the last 2+ months have received any official attention. Reporting bugs in the faint hope to get them fixed seems like a waste of time now. A general note on managers: Managers typically work on behalf of the short-term shareholder value. Not the employees, not the long-term sustainability, and certainly not the customers. Boeing is a prime example of the application of this management mantra. Just to put expectations into perspective. Despite its many flaws, I do love and enjoy DCS thanks to the squadron I fly with. They make it worthwhile. However, I am outspoken about DCS' shortcomings in order to get its issues enough attention from ED. To make DCS better for everyone, including the evangelists who repeatedly suggest us critics to walk away. I'm terribly naive, I know ... My wish: These efforts to fall on fruitful ground and be appreciated and considered. By ignoring the content creators, ED is leaving vast resources untapped and fallow.

Right! I didn't notice that. A great update is coming.